Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X! (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 23 January 2011 (→‎Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change: archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light]] none none 23 January 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)]] none none 18 January 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User: Marknutley|Request for clarification: User: Marknutley]] none none 13 January 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion]] none none 8 January 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Initiated by Jayron32 at 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Jayron32

My request for clarification is two fold. First, does motion 4 (Brews ohare advocacy restrictions) expire with motion 6, or motion 5? If it DOES expire with motion 6, then does this page: User:Count Iblis/Speed of light, which is pretty much exactly the point-of-view that Brews ohare tried to push into the Speed of light article, count as advocacy, and more to the point, does this use of said page count as advocacy of Brews ohare's POV, something expressly forbidden by motion 4. --Jayron32 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • On a plain read, and unless I've missed something, the advocacy restrictions expired at the end of June 2010 and were not renewed with the subsequent motions. –xenotalk 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Wikipedia:Activist)

Initiated by TS at 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Tony Sidaway

The essay Wikipedia:Activist was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (see early revision), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:

Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

Here four days ago now admin Nuclearwarfare fully protected the essay for 48 hours because, in his words "This essay and this talk page have completely devolved into utter uselessness. Nothing in these recent talk page discussions look like they have any promise of ultimately helping the encyclopedia." Since then Cla68 has engaged in discussion on the talk page.

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, "since when did essays need references", went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to WP:AE (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --TS 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anybody doesn't understand what this request is about, it's a request for arbitrator comment: viz, comment on the scope of the remedies pertaining to the case I cite and their implication for the editing of tangentially related essays. As far as I'm aware that's what this process is intended for: clarification. --TS 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Casliber's comments it occurred to me that a bold redirect to the essay Wikipedia:Advocacy may be more useful than trying to resolve the issues with this one. I've done it. Material from one essay may be merged into the other if necessary. --TS 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than getting ourselves bogged down in the pros and cons of the essay (which is apparently here to stay, at least for the time being) perhaps the arbitrators should address the way in which this document is being used to continue the bad faith and bickering that was hosted on the climate change articles until recently, apparently prosecuted by some of the topic-banned editors and their enablers. Surely this is something on which the Committee can suggest a way forward. --TS 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The essay was found to be allowable at AfD, and some who demurred seem to have made edits which are, on their face, a bit less than helpful thereto. [1] is one thereof. Cla68 has made 6 of the last 250 edits, of which he made none since 25 December. Nor have any of Zulu's edits appeared to be in any way, shape or form disruptive to normal editing of essays. I would suggest a simple statement that disruption of editing of an essay for the clear sake of disruption has occurred, and should be denounced. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one example -- see [2], [3], ad nauseam. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See [4], [5] etc. In the words of Cicero, "How long, O Cataline?" applies. There are dozens of such edits - and this does not even begin to touch the weirdness found on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "bold redirect" as essentially allowing the improper edits to have the effect they were intended to have - that is, deletion of the essay when it was not deleted at AfD. Allowing misbehaviour to circumvent WP policies is the worst possible sort of precedent imaginable. Collect (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottyBerg

I'm not certain of the purpose of this clarification request, or if one is needed. The essay was written while the CC case was underway, and nobody brought it up, and it was not mentioned in the decision. The sole diff diffs provided by Collect above is not worth making a fuss about. The essay has problems and should have been deleted. I do believe that it was at least in part influenced by the then-ongoing CC arbitration, but I don't see what needs to be clarified. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cherry-picked diffs provided by Collect are of zero relevancy to this clarification request. If it is OK for topic-banned editors to create/participate in this essay, whether the edits are good or not is not an issue for arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Casliber's concern that the essay may "read like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders." I was concerned about that from the beginning and wrote a section on "activism to advance fringe points of view." It was gutted without discussion and with the edit summary "trying to tidy some of the writing."[6]. Even with that section, the essay was problematic. In one of its most recent permutations it suggested that poor writing may be a hallmark of activists! Tony's redirect is the only solution. I see that edit warring has taken place to revert Tony's redirect, with, naturally, a "don't edit war" edit summary [7]. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZuluPapa5

I sought clarification when entering the essay. I've seen no evidence but guilt by association in regards to the CC sanctions. Best I can tell, those working to keep CC banned editors out of the essay, are escalating the CC issues. Guess I'll have to start my own essay. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Bold redirect is battle like. The essay had progressed to address concerns. Have faith.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] can we establish an clear issue before jumping to conclusion, I am befuddled why I was called in here, other then the pretext of my topic ban. The only way I have to satisfy concerns, is to apparently stay out of the essay for good? That is, after being forced to wear the badge of shame, called a battleground topic ban, until I can appeal on my building content record. How can I build content, if my actions continue to be called into question by association? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

The essay was originally drafted by me and several other editors, and presumably (in the case of the other participating editors) and for sure on my part, based on all of our experiences and observations participating in Wikipedia over a number of years. Once posted, I have participated in content discussions on the essay's talk page and, along with other editors, have added some more content. I have not, however, made a single revert to the essay. Some editors agree with what the essay says, and some obviously disagree, but I don't see any problem with that, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia essays are to provoke reflection, discussion, and critical thinking of issues involved in building an encyclopedia.

Of Tony's actions here, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate request. He isn't asking for clarification, instead asking for "arbitrator comments". In other words, it looks like he's trying to pull some comments out of the arbitrators that he can use as weapons later to continue the battlefield behavior that he has exhibited since the close of the CC arbitration case. He has previously tried to make what appears to be an attempt to draw me and others back into a battle with him as the instigator. To be honest, I resent his attempts, whether intentional or not, to do so. I ask that the arbitrators not allow themselves to be drawn into whatever it is he's trying to do here, and let the rest of us get back to building an encyclopedia, of which some of us are actually trying to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Count Iblis...a few (fortunately, very few) editors involved with the essay have tried to turn it into a battleground over the CC topic. Most of the participating editors (including me, IMHO) have refrained from being drawn into that type of behavior, which is appropriate since the essay is not a part of the CC topic area. Personally, I am disappointed to see those few editors try to turn the essay into a CC battleground, but they are responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if the behavior of those few editors needs to be dealt with, then AE might be the appropriate forum, not here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Solution: Make a template like this

with "article" replaced by "essay".

Clearly, there is a problem with the way the essay is being edited. The main points made in the essay are the same that the climate sceptical editors have complained about since 2007, however the essay formulates these abstractly, avoiding mention of climate change or global warming. Of course, editors are allowed to write such essays, but the problem is that there is no real collaborative editing going on. Moreover, many of the main editors were involved in the CC case, in fact quite a few were topic banned. So, i.m.o. one should make the essay subject to general sanctions. Alternatively, Cla68 could move it to his userspace. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ludwigs2

Allow me to point out that I have seen this issue raised many times on wikipedia - in at least three essays, and in countless talk page and ANI threads on multiple topics, so this in not something that's specific to climate change. I fact, it affects (to my personal knowledge) climate change, alternative medicine, fringe science issues, issues concerning israel and palestine, judaism more broadly put, socialism broadly put, and many issues in American politics.

The problem (put most generally) occurs when a number of editors implicitly or explicitly decide to coordinate their efforts in order to impose a particular viewpoint as truth on wikipedia. they may do this intentionally (as part of a real-world effort to use wikipedia for propaganda) or they may do it unintentionally (out of a personal conviction that what they are arguing for is the truth), but in either case they use the same series of edit-warring and shout-down tactics to achieve their end (basically a kamikaze approach that either gets them what they want or renders the article and talk page unreadable and uneditable). It's a major behavioral problem that wikipedia has not yet managed to master (because every time someone tries to address the issue, one or more of these loose coordinate groups feels threatened and shouts-down the effort).

There's more I could say on the issue (I could talk on this topic extensively) but I'll restrict myself to pointing out that if the raison d'etre for this request is that this is something specific to climate change, then this request is specious and should be dismissed out of hand. this isn't even remotely restricted to climate change. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Calsiber gave an opinion on the Essay. However it was just that, an opinion. There is no arbcom ruling that overides the community decision to keep the essay. Casliber and all arbitrators are welcome of course to participate in any community discussion on the essay itself in their editorial capacity.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I must say I have a problem with the essay as is, as I am concerned that it reads like a manual for anyone wanting to push a fringe POV into gaming a battlefield with mainstream defenders...which strikes me as antithetical to the production of neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. For that reason, I am saddened that the deletion discussion did not come to a conclusion that a merge with Wikipedia:Advocacy. The rationale is that the discussion can be applied to mainstream and fringe activists, rather than concentrating on the former, which I feel is unhelpful. That said, we don't have a policy on merging essays, and we have over a thousand of them apparently - what worries me is a "not seeing the forest for the trees" - Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#essay - doesn't have alot to say. If it were up to me, I think the essay as is is a little too close to home to the recent arbitration case, and hence does have battleground elements to it, yet I recognise others don't see it as such. I would hope that in general, there is more of an effort to merge similar essays into more solid essays, which would helpfully give them greater weight, readability and legitimacy, and that if this is not spontaneous, then maybe an RfC into essays and looking at how to streamline them is fruitful. I note there is a new Essays Wikiproject which might be agood place to log centralised discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At times in the essay, Cla68 may possibly allude to his role in the global warming articles dispute, but I don't consider that he has breeched the sanctions imposed on him. Otherwise, perhaps a future consensus will support a merge, a userfication or rewrite of this essay, however that's outside of ArbCom's prerogative. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation is being overblown on all sides. I do not presently see a need for arbitrator intervention here, although I hope I will still be able to make that comment a few days from now. I will add that when an essay proves to be this divisive in Wikipedia space, the obvious solution is often to userfy it; although perhaps this is more in the nature of an MfD !vote as opposed to an arbitrator comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User: Marknutley

Initiated by Stephan Schulz (talk) at 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Stephan Schulz

User:Marknutley has been indef blocked by FloNight in early November 2010 in connection with WP:ARBCC topic bans. She instructed him to appeal to ArbCom for unblocking. On appeal, he had been told to wait for the new committee, and has received no feedback to his new request yet. I have no particular opinion on whether an unblock is a good idea or not, but I think it's unfair to let him hang out without any acknowledgement. ArbCom owes him at least an answer.

Statement by Petri Krohn

Mark's anonymous edits can most likely be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy. There are however at least two other users using the same proxy farm. There was a related sock puppet investigation somewhere (now deleted). All the IPs have since been blocked as known and proven proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether or not Mark should be unblocked, but as far as I know, there is nothing tying him to the so-called "pink proxies". I seem to remember he was indeffed for one edit as an anon from his own IP while he was blocked, but I may be wrong. --Sander Säde 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the indefinite block is not clearly documented, but I believe this was the reason. That administrator forgot to extend the block to indefinite, a mistake which was quickly corrected by another admin. HeyMid (contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FloNight

User:Marknutley was been indef blocked by me after contacting him privately with my concerns about violations of our multiple account policy and he chose to be blocked rather than continue the discussion about the situation at that time. Before he was blocked the matter was also reviewed on the Functionaries mailing list.

Later Mark changed his mind and asked for his situation to be reviewed. It needs to be done by arbcom because it involves his use of various ip that should not be discussed on site.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Ban appeal cases are not usually quick, especially those involving private data; discussion of this one is still on-going. I would suggest patience is the best option here or Marknutley could always contact ArbCom directly if he would like an update - he's not done so since his initial request. It's only been 10 days at this point and there's quite a few new Arbs who need to review the original information from last year. Shell babelfish 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Shell notes, this is currently being discussed and should be addressed fairly soon. –xenotalk 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Timotheus Canens

It has recently come to my attention that Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) has been operating, and editing from, the account Gold Hat (talk · contribs), in apparent contradiction with the terms of the 2009 amended unban motion ("User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process"). When I asked him about it, he claims that arbcom is aware of the Gold Hat (talk · contribs) account and has no issue with it. Can the committee confirm this, and if so, make suitable amendments to the restrictions? T. Canens (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: The restriction at issue clearly does not distinguish between disclosed and undisclosed accounts (otherwise there would be no need for the special provision for a bot). IMO it's not very helpful to call the violation "technical" simply because no harm was done. By analogy, we routinely block users editing in violation of a ban (site or topic) even if the contributions are good.

My point is that, if the committee is okay with these accounts (and I certainly perceive no problem with the edits of Gold Hat et al.), then it should either lift the restriction entirely or amend it to only prohibit illegitimate uses (though isn't that covered by WP:SOCK anyway?). But it isn't healthy to silently ignore restrictions that are still on the books. How are administrators supposed to figure out what restrictions should be enforced and what should be ignored? T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren: Ah, the elusive "spirit" again. A nice pattern, indeed:
  1. Arbcom, apparently intending to prohibit only X, passes a broadly-worded restriction whose wording prohibits X and Y.
  2. The user does Y, and an admin takes enforcement action because, after all, the restriction does prohibit Y.
  3. The enforcing admin gets dragged before arbcom and berated for "overreaction" or "ignoring the spirit" or whatever by arbs.
  4. Rinse, repeat.
No wonder so few admins do AE work any more. They really have to be masochistic to participate in such a system. Any admin enforcing an arbcom decision has to start at the words in that decision. There is no other place they can start at. When those words become so malleable that "one account X only" can mean "any number of accounts, as long as they are all declared", would it be surprising that people refuse to take the speaker seriously?

AE cases are bad enough when admins are actually able to rely on what arbcom wrote, and even then we have protracted threads with massive amounts of wikilawyering which no admin wants to close; but at least you have the words, and they can only mean a small number of things. When even arbcom's words cannot be relied upon, all you will get is exponential amounts of wikilawyering over what the "spirit" of a restriction is. Is the "spirit" of a topic ban to get the editor to completely disengage from a topic, or is it to prevent unproductive/tendentious editing only? Is the "spirit" a one-way rachet, so that it will only curtail the wording of a restriction, and not expand it? When admins deviate from the terms of a restriction to better serve its "spirit", they will be "biased" and perhaps "involved"; when they adhere to the way a restriction is worded, they will be "overreacting", and "biased" too.

The perhaps inconvenient fact is that AE admins are not responsible for fixing arbcom's oversights. If you think Jack's restriction has outlived its purpose (and I tend to agree), then lift it. If you think it should remain but was unfortunately worded, then amend it. As far as I know, Special:ReadMind does not exist, or even the more specialized Special:ReadMindOfArbCom. Arbcom communicates its instructions to the admins enforcing its decision with its words. It is not too much to ask those words to be something that admins can actually rely upon. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jack Merridew

{{sigh}} I said arbs, not all of ArbCom. This *has* been discussed with some arbs and last I was told, by John, was wait until mid-Feb. Guess not. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Hat's first edit was to an Arb's toy account, and that led to an email thread. Check your arb-list archives from late last July. I've also directly informed John via email. Look at Gold Hat's edits; he (ok, *I*) have had talks mostly with admins, 'crat's and admins with it. There are also assorted recent emails with a number of arbs about fulling lifting these restrictions. Also, I'm traveling, and am mostly focused off-wiki. Ask John and Cas about that. They know that story, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The recent email thread is named "Jack as the Beast". That one does not discuss Gold Hat, but is about what's next. It includes seven arbs and five non-arb admins, including a WMF-staffer ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm funny ;)
Cheers, Gold Hat aka david 04:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ID Gold Hat has been rotating on my user page for a long time; it's also in User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer, which is transcluded there, for all to see. It was created *by* my Jack account and appears in the usual log. Gotta go; off, Jack Merridew 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger, I'll email you, later today; I've already pinged Shell. And I'll work on being funnier, ok?

I'm fine with Tim having brought this here; the timing re my RL, is unfortunate, but he wouldn't have known that. His intent, methinks, is to clear this old mess up. I've said, many, many times, to earlier incarnations of this committee, to individual arbs, and to the wider community: More dispute resolution, less dispute prolongation. Obviously, I endorse Ralph's view; he understands me. I didn't canvas him or contact him over this, either.

So, another year of restrictions has passed, I've not been blocked, and I'm pretty well connected with many <del>of the Biguns</del><ins>appropriate advisers</ins> on this site. The point of the vids was illustrative; I know that piece very well, read it long ago; was *there* the night the barricade hydraulics locked-up (during the NYC previews). Restrictions in perpetuity are inappropriate; please lift them all. To not do so, makes me a target, a perpetual second-class editor, which is punitive, not preventative. <irony>The edit that seems to have brought this to Tim's attention, was me supporting the lifting of another reformed user's editing restrictions.</irony>

Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note the stricken “Biguns”, above; my intent was to state that I've been actively seeking appropriate advisers per

    • User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.

      As RexxS comments, below, I do want to put the name Jack Merridew and all of that theme behind me. And I need this committee's leave to do so.

      Also, Gold Hat is not my intended new user name(and I'm not fixed on a specific one, yet) — it's a play on Stinkin' badges and the original version of Wikipedia:What adminship is not (It's been edit-out, since; it's a wiki)

      Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren && Roger; we swapped Salmonidae of appropriate scale ;)

@Tim, I understand where you're coming from. This is ancient baggage. It's served as a honeypot, which has been useful. Enough. Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

Jack's ban was reviewed in November 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading the discussion as background.

The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

The motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed in December 2009, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he agreed on 11 December 2009):

  1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
  2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
  3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

Finally, that leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the restriction would strictly need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry, and the two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew have trivial contributions and are linked to Jack Merridew. Gold Hat has only made comments at places such as his own talk page, where the viewers are well aware that it's Jack – and who enjoy the mild humour resulting. If you like, it's a kind of echo of one of Jack's wiki-friends, Bishonen, who keeps a stable of humorous puppets to lighten people's wiki-lives.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user, drawing criticism for actions that would be considered harmless when done by another user. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it. --RexxS (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification
@Shell – The initial restriction placed over two years ago (one of the 8 restrictions from December 2008). HTH. --RexxS (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

  • I endorse what was written by RexxS above to lift the remaining restrictions. My interactions with Jack have been nothing but pleasant. Let's go with the spirit of the revised restrictions (and not the strict wording) - the quaint Gold Hat account is strictly frivolous and provides welcome amusement. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... "quaint" and "frivolous". How about this: every registered editor is hereby allowed to create several "joke" accounts apiece, flooding the wiki with "fake" users that have to be redirected to the actual owners to avoid any "confusion". That would be awesome!: and oh so conducive to building the wiki in a productive manner. "Inside jokes" about how every admin has socks, and how "n00bs" have no clue. "Biguns" and "littluns": "Us vs. Them". Want to shed the "Lord of the Flies" imagery? Close this "fekkin" thread already. And anyone who remotely suggests that T.Canens should actually be chastised for bringing this up needs a serious trout walloping upside the head. Nothing is going to happen here, so end it. Have mercy... Doc talk 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • First I've heard of any such thing. Jack Merridew, could you clarify what you're referring to? Shell babelfish 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mailing list is notoriously un-searchable, but I'll see what I can do there - it doesn't seem to have made it to the "list of alternate accounts we know about", but that does happen some times. Regardless though, we have a long history of allowing humorous alternate accounts - I believe the initial restriction was due to past inappropriate sockpuppetry, which doesn't appear to have reoccurred in the year since the restriction was put in place. Shell babelfish 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Follow up to Timotheus Canens: Working in any kind of dispute resolution can be frustrating at the best of times. Sometimes though too much insistence on following the letter of the law can cause someone to miss the point of a policy/guideline/restriction. While policies have been able to grow over the years to give examples of times where thoughtful application is important (exceptions to the 3RR for vandalism and later for BLP), ArbCom restrictions tend to be very brief and somewhat stuck in the moment; understanding that moment and what the restriction was meant to prevent tends to be an important part of enforcing the restriction. Restrictions limiting an editor to one account are about stopping a problem whether it's sneaky sockpuppetry or logging out to avoid scrutiny - an account that clearly indicates its origin and isn't used nefariously doesn't really fall into the realm of what the restriction is meant to prohibit.

        It is a lot of work to take an in depth look at cases and understand what the restrictions are and why they are there; I deeply respect the admins who work at AE because of the time and effort they choose to put in to the project. I certainly don't think we'd expect them to develop mind reading on top of everything; I'm sure that anyone on ArbCom would be happy to answer questions about any cases or restrictions when they come up whether it's a formal request here or simply catching on of us in email/IM/IRC. Shell babelfish 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of observations.

    First (mostly to Timotheus Canens), I see that the Gold Hat has been linked, via a soft redirect, to the main account since the day of the account's creation. So while there may be a technical breach of the restrictions, and while it may not have been appropriate to create the second account, it was clearly not created to deceive or evade sanctions or for a similar nefarious purpose (the intention of the restriction in this instance).

    Second (mostly to Jack Merridew), it seems to me an essential requirement of humorous accounts that the contributions are funny. Absent guidelines clarifying whether faintly droll fully meets this requirement, I am unable to recommend appropriate sizes and weights of applicable Salmonidae. However, as content issues such as this are essentially the community's bailiwick, not ArbCom's, I shall say no more.  Roger talk 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Timotheus Canens: thanks for the comments. I understand your frustration about the wording of sanctions and restrictions. Because it is difficult to foresee all the permutations, and to avoid decisions becoming too legalistic, the committee has traditionally written restrictions concisely and left interpretation down to the community. In the light of recent events, perhaps we need to review this. In any case, I would not criticse an administrator for acting on a good faith interpretation. All that said, I would probably support removal of the restrictions on Jack Merridew altogether at this point and will offer a motion if this view appears to have consensus.  Roger talk 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clearly identified "joke" account almost certainly does not violate the spirit of the restriction, which is about sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how wise it might have been to create the account, but I certainly think that viewing it as a breach of the restriction is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction. — Coren (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I'll add a statement later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puzzled. I've not heard of this, but then, my tenure as an Arb is less than two weeks at this point, so I'm not commenting on the substance of the issue yet. T. Canens's point is well taken, however. At the very least, an enforcement action made in good faith based on the common-sense reading of a sanction should not result in any negative consequences for the admin making that call--the fault in such a disconnect probably lies with Arbcom, for one of several reasons, rather than the admin taking enforcement action. It's Arbcom's job to lift sanctions in a timely manner when they're no longer relevant or helping build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=409491940"